As mentioned, camera angle is deliberately tilted in such a position to pronounce the flare effect. At normal shooting angle, flare is not detected at all.
CY21 shows ugly flare even when the sun is not in the frame. And flare will certainly show up in Nikon 14-24G most of the time once the sun is in the frame.
BTW, the flare shown above is with lens stopped down to about f5.6. At wide open, the portion of the orange flare in the lower left corner is more round. The rest of the little flares look rounder and nicer too!
edwardkaraa wrote:
Excuse me but calling the 16-35 a poor lens is a bit extreme as in my own findings it should at least be as good as the Nikon and the ZF 21 in the range of 16 to 28mm, and imo probably better than both. The only weak point is at 35mm. What I'm talking about is the very extreme corners which cover less than 1-2% of the entire image area. Have you ever used one or just making uneducated guesses?
The 16-35 is much worse than both the Nikon and the Zeiss. There is a difference of day and night. I think you should subscribe to the tests from Lloyd Chambers so you can see for yourself. He actually tested these 3 lenses together (and the Voigtlander 20/3.5). The Nikon and the Zeiss are both at a very high level that no other wide-angle DSLR-lens can reach at this moment. As I like the colours and contrast of the Zeiss more than the Nikon I have chosen for the Zeiss.
No sharpening or CA correction was applied to any of the crops I just posted.
I shot using a tripod but didn't bother with MLU ot or remote - so just a quick and crude comparison.
Processed with ACR. Kindai CY-EOS adaptor on the Contax, Kindai NF-EOS on the ZF.
On the 5D I've found no real difference between my copies of the Contax and the ZF in terms of resolution, despite plenty of pixel peeping.
The presence of hotspots/highlights in the shape of dots or the shape of the aperture taken with both CY/ZF lenses is unavoidable. But contrast robbing veil as shown in TimSelim's f/11 shots using both versions doesn't look too good. In my experience, the Nikkor 14-24mm handles this situation better. YMMV, of course.
Is it me or is the CY a tad bit wider(shorter focal length)?
Well, this agrees with the Zeiss specifications of the two lenses: the diagonal field of view is 92° for the C/Y and 90° for the ZF. So a very slight difference, but still.
I am already subscribed to Lloyd's tests and as far as I know, the 16-35 has not been tested. Even if it was, it can be mounted only on a Sony body so how could he compare it to other systems. I'm not sure how can you make such statements about a lens that obviously you have not used.
wiseguy010 wrote:
The 16-35 is much worse than both the Nikon and the Zeiss. There is a difference of day and night. I think you should subscribe to the tests from Lloyd Chambers so you can see for yourself. He actually tested these 3 lenses together (and the Voigtlander 20/3.5). The Nikon and the Zeiss are both at a very high level that no other wide-angle DSLR-lens can reach at this moment. As I like the colours and contrast of the Zeiss more than the Nikon I have chosen for the Zeiss.
TimSelim's sample are very nice and sharp, but of course taken with a 12mp camera. I would be interested to see some 100% crops from weekh's 5D2 to assess sharpness on the latest high mp cameras.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Excuse me but calling the 16-35 a poor lens is a bit extreme as in my own findings it should at least be as good as the Nikon and the ZF 21 in the range of 16 to 28mm, and imo probably better than both. The only weak point is at 35mm. What I'm talking about is the very extreme corners which cover less than 1-2% of the entire image area. Have you ever used one or just making uneducated guesses?
No, I have not used one but the guess is educated and based on the statement
Usually with my 16-35, when the center focus is at infinity, the extreme corner focus can be at just around 1-2 meters only.
At 35 mm and f/2.8, such a curvature translates as a blur disk diameter of 200-400 micrometers, for the image corners when the center is in focus or vice versa. That is quite something. One would even require f/22 to get reasonably sharp corners on a 10x15 cm print.
You have a valid point that these numbers only apply to the very image corners, where I assume that your observation is based on the final digital image and not on the viewfinder image, but there is always a transition region where this lens must be far from excellent.
Edward - I agree, I'd be interested to see some results from a higher MP body (I'm wishing for a 'D3x sensor in a D700 body' if/when Nikon release one).
I seem to be the only one posting 100% crops here from the ZF and CY for the moment, hopefully someone else will pitch in soon.
Tim
I have not used the C/Y21 but based on my experience with the ZF21, the comments regarding field curvature are accurate. The focus curves away from the camera approaching the corners. A bit disappointing, but not unexpected. As for corner sharpness, when in focus the corners are essentially as sharp as the center, that is to say as good as anything I've ever seen. This even includes shooting wide-open. When comparing this behaviour against the MTFs keep in mind that the MTFs are for a flat plane, so field curvature shows up as degraded contrast.
And thanx for clearing it out.